Re: A Mascot

On 16 November 2011 12:01, heathmatlock <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I liked Go's mascot, and I figure it couldn't hurt to have our own. I spent
> the past hour making this:
> http://i.imgur.com/Mib6Q.png>
> What do you think?

Ummmmm.... do we _really_ need a mascot? And no offence to your
artistic abilities, but even if we did, I don't see how a lamb relates
to Haskell :/

Re: A Mascot

People tend to concentrate on the lambda which cooresponds to the
functional aspect of haskell when designing logos. Not nearly enough
attention is paid to the other striking feature, the laziness. The
'bottom' symbol _|_ should feature prominently. The two most defining
features of haskell are that it is purely functional and _|_ inhabits
every type. The combination of which is very powerful.

Re: A Mascot

People tend to concentrate on the lambda which cooresponds to the
functional aspect of haskell when designing logos. Not nearly enough
attention is paid to the other striking feature, the laziness. The
'bottom' symbol _|_ should feature prominently. The two most defining
features of haskell are that it is purely functional and _|_ inhabits
every type. The combination of which is very powerful.
John

I would have to think about this a bit longer, but here's the symbol reworked onto the helmet:

Re: A Mascot

People tend to concentrate on the lambda which cooresponds to the
functional aspect of haskell when designing logos. Not nearly enough
attention is paid to the other striking feature, the laziness. The
'bottom' symbol _|_ should feature prominently. The two most defining
features of haskell are that it is purely functional and _|_ inhabits
every type. The combination of which is very powerful.

Re: A Mascot

> People tend to concentrate on the lambda which cooresponds to the
> functional aspect of haskell when designing logos. Not nearly enough
> attention is paid to the other striking feature, the laziness. The
> 'bottom' symbol _|_ should feature prominently. The two most defining
> features of haskell are that it is purely functional and _|_ inhabits
> every type. The combination of which is very powerful.

I like the idea, even though personally I don't care that much.

I think the phrase "being lazy with class" could be put into the design
of a mascot. For Haskell (forgive me for that term) marketing purposes
a mascot would definitely help.

But I think, despite the well-founded denotational semantics of Haskell,
bottom does not play that much of a role.

Re: A Mascot

> People tend to concentrate on the lambda which cooresponds to the
> functional aspect of haskell when designing logos. Not nearly enough
> attention is paid to the other striking feature, the laziness. The
> 'bottom' symbol _|_ should feature prominently. The two most defining
> features of haskell are that it is purely functional and _|_ inhabits
> every type. The combination of which is very powerful.

The mascot already represents the lambda, so all that is needed is to show off its _|_.

Re: A Mascot

>
> But I think, despite the well-founded denotational semantics of Haskell,
> bottom does not play that much of a role.

There is one? Where? Last time I looked (a while ago, admittedly)
there was no denotational (or any formal) semantics for Haskell.
- lots of stuff for fragments of Haskell-like languages or parts of Haskell, but not a
full proper definitive semantics for *Haskell*, as found in the wild...

Looking at
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Denotational_semanticsthe first footnote states
"In fact, there are no written down and complete denotational semantics of Haskell. This would be a tedious task void of additional insight and we happily embrace the folklore and common sense semantics."

However, if you have a proof-based tool used for reasoning about Haskell programs
in a safety-critical environment, you might just need to do this tedious task,
particularly in order to show your proof rules sound.
- has anyone in that area done this? is it available ?

Re: A Mascot

>
> On 16 Nov 2011, at 08:46, Ertugrul Soeylemez wrote:
>
>>
>> But I think, despite the well-founded denotational semantics of Haskell,
>> bottom does not play that much of a role.
>
> There is one? Where? Last time I looked (a while ago, admittedly)
> there was no denotational (or any formal) semantics for Haskell.
> - lots of stuff for fragments of Haskell-like languages or parts of Haskell, but not a
> full proper definitive semantics for *Haskell*, as found in the wild...
>
> Looking at
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Denotational_semantics> the first footnote states
> "In fact, there are no written down and complete denotational semantics of Haskell. This would be a tedious task void of additional insight and we happily embrace the folklore and common sense semantics."
>
> However, if you have a proof-based tool used for reasoning about Haskell programs
> in a safety-critical environment, you might just need to do this tedious task,
> particularly in order to show your proof rules sound.
> - has anyone in that area done this? is it available ?
>
> Is there a definitive Operational Semantics? Axiomatic?
>
> PS - I love the mascot - thanks Heath !
>>
>>
>> Greets,
>> Ertugrul
>>
>>
>> --
>> nightmare = unsafePerformIO (getWrongWife >>= sex)
>> http://ertes.de/>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> [hidden email]>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Andrew Butterfield Tel: +353-1-896-2517 Fax: +353-1-677-2204
> Lero@TCD, Head of Foundations & Methods Research Group
> Director of Teaching and Learning - Undergraduate,
> School of Computer Science and Statistics,
> Room G.39, O'Reilly Institute, Trinity College, University of Dublin
> http://www.scss.tcd.ie/Andrew.Butterfield/> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> [hidden email]> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe